neuro-trash, haha, who told you that? FYI, ‘he was born in the time of Herod’ which was 54 AD.
A. No, the first millennium did not run from 1 to 999. A “millennium” means a thousand of something. 999 is not 1000.
B. Herod the Great died in 4 BC.
C. There were no dates lost on the Gregorian correction. There had been too many leap years; the skipped days were to make it right again.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
As for my posting on the Post, I am not sure if it is the NY Post or the Washington Post. I read somewhere (and can’t find it now) that on 1/1/1901 the Post (whichever one) talked about the start of the new century and now they are talking about the start of the new century being 1/1/2000.
Now I know that the dates and all is arbitrary, however, we have accepted this calendar format and have used it much more than all our lives. It was understood in 1901 that 1900 was not the new century (20th) but that 1901 was. Now 99 years later, we have a majority of people believing that 2000 is the start of the 21st century and the new millennium.
While the calendar is arbitrary, the number scheme it uses is not. The calendar was not set to start in the year zero, but in the year 1/1/1. Yes, it happened quite a while after the starting point, but that is the way it was calculated. From this we cannot just change the way it works to suit our needs. Now decade can be applied to any 10 consecutive years, the same as century to any 100 and millennium to any 1000. But saying 21st century can only be applied from 2001 - 2100 and the second millennium was 1001 - 2000.
Party now and again next year, just keep all the stuff that says Millennium for next year too.
Jeffery
It is important to distinguish between general terms like “a millenium”, “the millenium”, “a century”, “the decade”, and specific terms, like “the 20th century” and “the third millenium”.
The specific phrases contain a number, and so they demand a starting point. This starting point would have to be the year 1 of the Common Era, for two reasons: (1) It wouldn’t make any sense to start it at 1 BCE. (2) While some would like it to start at year 0, this would require us to adjust our point of view, to stop thinking of the year Jesus was born as 4 BCE, but to really and seriously consider that year as 3 BCE. Even on the “13-month calendar” thread, no one is willing to make such drastic changes to our way of thinking, and this is even more insidious.
Therefore, we must agree that “the 20th century” still has another year to go before it ends.
However, I maintain that if we leave out the number, and simply call it “the century”, then it is entirely legitimate to say that this century will end in four weeks.
I can do that because I have not specified what I mean by “this century”. It can mean anything I want to. If I wanted to, I could say that “this century”, meaning “the first post-atomic bomb century” still has another 46 years left to it.
But most people understand “this century” to mean "the hundred years when all the years start with ‘19’ ", and that’s ending now. Nothin wrong with that!
Hey, Jeffery, looks like we were writing and posting at pretty much the same time, and wrote pretty much the same ideas too! Good job!
Yes, Keeves I agree with you.
I was wondering if you were arguing against my point (but it did not seem to be) and I did not look at the time of our posts.
Jeffery
Wise advice from:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/calendar21.html
The first millennium started in AD 1, so the millennia are counted in this manner:
1st millennium: 1-1000
2nd millennium: 1001-2000
3rd millennium: 2001-3000
Thus, the 3rd millennium and, similarly, the 21st century start on 1 Jan 2001.
This is the cause of some heated debate, especially since some dictionaries and encyclopaedias say that a century starts in years that end in 00. Furthermore, the change 1999/2000 is obviously much more spectacular than the change 2000/2001.
Let me propose a few compromises:
Any 100-year period is a century. Therefore the period from 23 June 1998 to 22 June 2098 is a century. So please feel free to celebrate the start of a century any day you like!
Although the 20th century started in 1901, the 1900s started in 1900. Similarly, we can celebrate the start of the 2000s in 2000 and the start of the 21st century in 2001.
Finally, let’s take a lesson from history:
When 1899 became 1900 people celebrated the start of a new century.
When 1900 became 1901 people celebrated the start of a new century.
Two parties! Let’s do the same thing again!
Something from “Star Trek: Voyager”:
Shannon O’Donnell - Kate Mulgrew
Henry Janeway - Kevin Tighe
from the episode “11:59”, set at the end of December, 2000
Shannon O’Donnell - Kate Mulgrew
Henry Janeway - Kevin Tighe
It seems the obvious answer has been overlooked (or perhaps I just missed it in all the above):
Most people count years the same way they count their own birthdays. On my last birthday, I completed 39 years. Though I am now in my 40th year, I tell everyone I’m 39. Next year, when I (gasp!) turn 40, I can either lie, or celebrate the completion of 40 years on my 40th birthday, the 40th anniversary of my birth. Not that you should feel obligated to get me a present or anything…
So we treat the numbers on the calendar the same way.
Add to this the fact that we reckon decades by the numeral in the “tens” column, and we reckon centuries by the numeral in the “hundreds” column, so it only makes sense to reckon millennia by the numeral in the “thousands” column.
And since centuries and millennia are not personally relevant to creatures as short-lived as we humans, arguing about precise definitions seems pretty silly to most of us.
All I know is, I’m going to at least two parties 23 days from now…